More Information

Ernst: Review 2050, but don't forget who's asking

Published: Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.

Preserve existing communities. Conserve water and energy. Prevent urban sprawl. Create a variety of land uses and housing types. Save green space. Establish corridors for wildlife by clustering construction. Keep buildings out of flood-prone areas. Encourage people to walk around their neighborhoods.

This is a pretty good list of what Sarasota County’s 2050 plan aims to accomplish in regulating construction of homes and businesses east of I-75. The recitation came from Steve Queior, CEO of the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, who said he endorses those goals.

Honestly, who wouldn’t? Of course, there was a "but" waiting to pop out as Queior spoke Wednesday evening in Sarasota at a forum sponsored by the Better Government Association.

Yes, he embraces the goals, Queior said, BUT maybe there’s a better way to accomplish them.

Fair enough. That’s what the county commissioners will consider in earnest on May 8. The topic has been a hot one, especially because the 2050 plan, which took years to develop, has won awards as a forward-looking blueprint designed to avoid many of the mistakes so prevalent in earlier Florida development patterns.

The catalyst to alter the plan certainly isn’t coming from the people, a woman from the audience noted.

She’s right. Developers and the owners of large tracts of land east of I-75 have complained to the commissioners that the rules of 2050 are too burdensome. They’ve met with staff privately to come up with dozens of changes, which have framed the debate.

Not coincidentally, the changes all involve a weakening of the rules. The logic essentially falls along the lines that developers can’t make enough money under the existing regulations; therefore they will not build; therefore jobs that could have been created will be lost.

It’s an appealing argument, because no one wants to seem as though they stand in the way of more jobs.

However, let’s look at the 2050 plan as we would the building codes that govern the construction of homes and businesses. Those codes set standards, right down to how many nails have to be driven through each section of roof shingles.

If we relaxed those rules, builders could erect homes cheaper and faster and hire more workers, creating more short-term jobs until the market was saturated. But we know that’s not the right way to do it, because those homes would fall apart during the first hurricane. So the rules, inconvenient and profit-sapping as they are to builders, do guarantee us greater security and quality of life.

The same holds true for the 2050 plan. At worst, we, meaning the citizens of Sarasota, have agreed to forgo short-term rewards in order to adhere to planning principles that promise to make our area a better place in which to live.

At best, we may still be able to have it both ways. The 2050 plan didn’t fully take effect until 2004. Given that a recession filled much of the time since then, we really haven’t had a chance to see how it will work. Now, on the cusp of another building boom, it makes little sense to throw out the policies that would ensure the type of growth we want.

It’s fairly easy to see how each policy of 2050 attempts to realize one or more of the goals that Queior of the chamber enunciated. Conceding that no plan is perfect and that perhaps some of the policies might be ham-handed in their attempts to achieve specific outcomes, it is reasonable to undergo periodic reviews.

However, if we accept those goals as desirable, then each policy change should have readily apparent the same nexus between policy and goal. And those who want to make the changes should be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what they propose is a means to those ends.

<p>Preserve existing communities. Conserve water and energy. Prevent urban sprawl. Create a variety of land uses and housing types. Save green space. Establish corridors for wildlife by clustering construction. Keep buildings out of flood-prone areas. Encourage people to walk around their neighborhoods.</p><p>This is a pretty good list of what Sarasota County's 2050 plan aims to accomplish in regulating construction of homes and businesses east of I-75. The recitation came from Steve Queior, CEO of the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, who said he endorses those goals.</p><p>Honestly, who wouldn't? Of course, there was a "but" waiting to pop out as Queior spoke Wednesday evening in Sarasota at a forum sponsored by the Better Government Association.</p><p>Yes, he embraces the goals, Queior said, BUT maybe there's a better way to accomplish them.</p><p>Fair enough. That's what the county commissioners will consider in earnest on May 8. The topic has been a hot one, especially because the 2050 plan, which took years to develop, has won awards as a forward-looking blueprint designed to avoid many of the mistakes so prevalent in earlier Florida development patterns.</p><p>The catalyst to alter the plan certainly isn't coming from the people, a woman from the audience noted.</p><p>She's right. Developers and the owners of large tracts of land east of I-75 have complained to the commissioners that the rules of 2050 are too burdensome. They've met with staff privately to come up with dozens of changes, which have framed the debate.</p><p>Not coincidentally, the changes all involve a weakening of the rules. The logic essentially falls along the lines that developers can't make enough money under the existing regulations; therefore they will not build; therefore jobs that could have been created will be lost.</p><p>It's an appealing argument, because no one wants to seem as though they stand in the way of more jobs.</p><p>However, let's look at the 2050 plan as we would the building codes that govern the construction of homes and businesses. Those codes set standards, right down to how many nails have to be driven through each section of roof shingles.</p><p>If we relaxed those rules, builders could erect homes cheaper and faster and hire more workers, creating more short-term jobs until the market was saturated. But we know that's not the right way to do it, because those homes would fall apart during the first hurricane. So the rules, inconvenient and profit-sapping as they are to builders, do guarantee us greater security and quality of life. </p><p>The same holds true for the 2050 plan. At worst, we, meaning the citizens of Sarasota, have agreed to forgo short-term rewards in order to adhere to planning principles that promise to make our area a better place in which to live.</p><p>At best, we may still be able to have it both ways. The 2050 plan didn't fully take effect until 2004. Given that a recession filled much of the time since then, we really haven't had a chance to see how it will work. Now, on the cusp of another building boom, it makes little sense to throw out the policies that would ensure the type of growth we want.</p><p>It's fairly easy to see how each policy of 2050 attempts to realize one or more of the goals that Queior of the chamber enunciated. Conceding that no plan is perfect and that perhaps some of the policies might be ham-handed in their attempts to achieve specific outcomes, it is reasonable to undergo periodic reviews.</p><p>However, if we accept those goals as desirable, then each policy change should have readily apparent the same nexus between policy and goal. And those who want to make the changes should be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what they propose is a means to those ends.</p><p>The public has not heard anything close to that.</p><p>Eric Ernst's column runs Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Contact him at eric.ernst@heraldtribune.com or (941) 486-3073.</p>